The URL can be used to link to this page

Item 6CCITY OF SOUTHLAI<,-E Department of Planning & Development Services STAFF REPORT March 12, 2014 C�eF�;ak[• oeTi[d1111c3 PROJECT: Site Plan for Kimball Business Center EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 114Ire11*3 ACTION NEEDED: ATTACHMENTS: Chandraco, LP is requesting approval of a Site Plan the proposed Kimball Business Center for the development of two office/warehouse buildings, on approximately 3.83 acres located at 925 S. Kimball Avenue. SPIN Neighborhood #8 Chandraco, LP is requesting approval of a Site Plan the proposed Kimball Business Center for the development of two office/warehouse buildings totaling approximately 50,389 square feet of office/warehouse floor area. Kimball Existing Zoning 11 Proposed Zoning 11 Gross Area 3.83 acres Number of Proposed Buildings 2 Total Building Area 50,389 sq. ft. Provided Parking 156 Proposed Parking Ratio 1 space: 323 sq. ft. Variance Driveway Stacking Depth - the Driveway Ordinance No. 634 requires the applicant to provide a minimum driveway stacking depth of seventy-five (75) feet at the south entry. The applicant is requesting to reduce the stacking depth to approximately thirty-one (31) feet. 1) Conduct Public Hearing 2) Consider Site Plan Approval Request (A) Background Information (B) Vicinity Map (C) Plans and Support Information — Link to PowerPoint Presentation (D) Site Plan Review Summary No. 3, dated February 14, 2014 (E) Surrounding Property Owners Map and Responses STAFF CONTACT: Ken Baker Patty Moos Case No. ZA14-003 (817) 748-8067 (817) 748-8269 OWNERS: APPLICANT: PROPERTY SITUATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: CURRENT ZONING :I RI to]:vii C011111rAEll k'Ilk'l0j1; SOUTHLAKE 2030: Case No. ZA14-003 BACKGROUND INFORMATION Chandraco, LP Pacheco Koch Consulting Engineers 925 S. Kimball Avenue Lot 2-R-2, Green Meadow Subdivision, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas 1-1" Light Industrial District December 3, 1974: Green Meadows subdivision was approved by City Council. January 20, 2004: City Council (6-0) approved a plat revision to Lots 2R1 and 2R2 of the Green Meadow subdivision under Planning Case No. ZA03- 087. The final plat was filed on March 31, 2004 A SPIN (SPIN #8) meeting was held on February 11, 2014 for this proposed development. The SPIN report is found in Attachment C of this staff report Consolidated Land Use Plan The Southlake 2030 Future Land Use Plan designates this property as Industrial District. T This designation is defined as; Industrial and business service development that is relatively free of unwanted side effects, such as unsightliness, noise, odor, glare, vibrations, etc., is permitted in the Industrial category. If meeting the qualification of relatively free of unwanted side effects, suitable types of development in the Industrial category can be characterized by the manufacturing, processing, packaging, assembly, storage, warehousing and/or distribution of products. Ancillary commercial and retail activities associated with these uses are permitted. Public Parks / Open Space and Public / Semi -Public activities as described above may be permitted if surrounding industrial uses do not pose hazards and are sufficiently buffered. he development as proposed appears to be consistent with the intent of the land use designation at this location. Pathways Master Plan Six (6) foot wide sidewalks along the S. Kimball Avenue will be constructed with this development. Attachment A Page 1 TREE PRESERVATION: The property proposed for development was platted in February 2004, it is regulated by the Tree Preservation Ordinance 585-B. The tree preservation regulations are different than in the current ordinance 585-D and are as follows: Non-residential Development: In a non-residential development, all protected trees that the Landscape Administrator determines must be altered in order to install utility lines within public R. O. W. or public utility or drainage easements as shown on an approved Final Plat, or to install fire lanes, required parking areas and building pad sites as shown on an approved Site Plan, shall be exempt from the tree protection and tree replacement requirements listed in Sections 7 and 8 of this Ordinance. Any protected trees within these areas that the Landscape Administrator determines do not have to be altered shall be subject to the tree protection requirements listed in Section 8 of this Ordinance, but not to the tree replacement requirements listed in Section 7 of this Ordinance. All other areas of the development shall be subject to both the tree replacement and the tree protection requirements, and all other provisions of this Ordinance. UTILITIES: TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT: STAFF COMMENTS PLANNING AND Case No. ZA14-003 Water The site has access to an existing 12-inch water line from the south along S. Kimball Avenue. Sewer The site has access to an existing 8-inch sewer line at the southeast corner of the property along S. Kimball Avenue. Area Road Network and Conditions The proposed development will access onto S. Kimball Avenue, a four (4) lane divided arterial with approximately eighty-eight (88) feet of right-of-way. The entry drive will be north side of the intersection of E. Continental Boulevard. * Based on the 2013 City of Southlake Traffic Count Report Traffic Impact * Vehicle Trips Per Day * AM -In, AM -Out, PM -In and PM -Out are peak hour generators on a weekday * Based on the ITE: Trip Generation Manual, 7rh Edition Attached is Site Plan Revised Review Summary No. 2, dated February 10, 2014. Attachment A Page 2 ZONING COMMISSION: February 20, 2014: Approved (6-0) subject to Site Plan Review Summary No. 3, dated February 14, 2014 and Staff Report No. 2 dated February 14, 2014; granting the variance as requested; making the approval contingent on there being a signalized light at the intersection at S. Kimball Avenue and E. Continental Boulevard; and noting the applicant's willingness to comply to the sight line ordinance and landscape ordinance in the gray area on the sight line from two (2) foot to three (3) foot (shrubs) and recognizing the applicant's willingness for seven (7) foot clear trunk trees along the south border; and making the motion subject to the two (2) additional items presented concerning the driveway configuration, right lane out, left lane out, and center lane going across S. Kimball Avenue to E. Continental Boulevard. WCommunity Development MEMO12014 Cases1003 - SP - Kimball Business Center Case No. Attachment A ZA14-003 Page 3 Vicinity Map Kimball Business Park 925 S. Kimball Avenue 2811 zaps loss % o �- ti 075 Q d - r4� `:-- 2150 Continental Boulevard 2201'{ �aa 226a •�1 •�- Z 14 0 0 3 Site Plan 5 0 126 260 600 .� =eet Case No. Attachment B ZA14-003 Page 1 PROJECT NARRATIVE Owner: Chandraco, LP Applicant: Pacheco Koch Property Address: 925 S. Kimball Avenue Property Location: 3.83 acre tract located along the east R.O.W. of Kimball Avenue at Continental Boulevard Legal Description: Lot 2-R-2, Green Meadow Subdivision, C.B. McDonald Survey Current Zoning: 1-1 SPIN: Property is located in SPIN #8. The Site Plan and Elevations were presented to SPIN on February 11, 2014. No questions or objections were noted in that meeting. Proposed Project: The proposed project will consist of two single -story buildings including one 13,709 s.f. office building and one 36,680 s.f. office/"flex" building. This application shall be for an Amended Plat and Detailed Site Plan for the property. The Owner and Applicant do not anticipate any required variances as part of this application. The project will include a small "Gathering Area" in the southeast corner of the propertyto be furnished with several picnic tables and landscaped to provide an area which is conducive to sitting and socializing. This area is depicted and detailed on the Ingress/Egress: After numerous discussions with City staff regarding the ingress/egress of the site, the driveway for this property have been modified to line up with the opposing lanes on Continental Boulevard. The unique situation being along the inside of the curve along Kimball Avenue, makes the requirement for a longer site distance than normal to the south/east. The current site plan and landscape plan provide 345 feet of site distance in this direction and 250 feet of stopping distance. There are varying opinions on whether there is an existing need for a traffic signal at this location. Our traffic engineer is of the opinion that the traffic flow and volume already warrant the need for a traffic signal. Our development will contribute approximately 7 percent of the overall traffic through this intersection once we construct our driveway. We are open to discussing with some level of cost participation towards this new traffic signal if the City is willing to work towards an equitable cost sharing arrangement. Case No. Attachment C ZA14-003 Page 1 CD Nil MMEM 1011 IN save 1999 Site Plan E yy \@3j bNd&.��`� 'doe F!'.: �i' �� 20 p0.5; a g s s a.aaee g _€ gk de �� d g.......... eA. nn�mmiimmeem �111119191111111 ommi0innnn 01111191I11111111 Landscape Plan Case No. Attachment C ZA14-003 Page 2 BUFFERYARD TYPE —A: 255 L.F. ' BUFFER WIDTH: 5' CANOPY TREES 3 0 1 PER 100 L.F. ACCENT TREES: 5 0 2 PER 100 LF. SHRUBS: 21 0 8 PER 100 L.F. s (zzs sF) GFGwocWE1�R. Seau S�tu� ITo4 iF) � LwOM (1]6sSURLLGP 1 � � TANI ITGT S.F) �.ITc SaLw,cR � ! J .— BUFFERYAAD TYPE—D: 597 LF. BUFFER MTN' 10' Q — 1 CANOPY TREES: 24 0 4 PER 100 LF. ACCENT TREES: 30 0 5 PER 100 LF. SHRUBS: 49 0 8 PER 100 L.F. NG 5 1`on F.) L �a�elocaw[ 1 csoull`GSP 'iarw ( IF) II BUFFERYARO TYPE —A LF. Ee(1 uuF BUFFER WIDTH 5' WIDTH: L CANOPY TREES B 0 1 PER 1U0 LF. ACCENT 1REE5: 11 0 2 PER 100 LF. - SHRUBS: 42 0 B PER 100 LF. � i r ._ Ll J xG — Iwo sFI ,TREE () CEDA9 Foe / — — 9CP9i 9tUL +IY1 aawcxI ISLwu 1199 s.F) ¢: IU cmnrz Uw Nc 11 2 1 I O F 1� BUFFERYARD TYPE—D: 416 LF.-38' DRNE= 380 L.F. BUFFER WIDTH: 10' CANOPY TREES 15 0 4 PER 100 ACCENT TREES 19 0 5 PER DO L F SHRUBS 30 0 8 PER 100 41 a mr (7 crow � Kj � x Q� ,4 A 4 G CANOPY TREE LEI -No SHRUB rLL.1P oe nww m[ vc � G zw o au.w wee GRGVNDCGVER ®ww M�we wus (//��f\ s�uuaw oui `✓ ® canes euwww� Ol IJNGERSTORY TREE Prsrr[a uv exs .u� nour gnu .mw� • uttuv nxays[ • .we x.xnr Case No. Attachment C ZA14-003 Page 3 Building A Elevations Front Elevation Rear Elevation Building B Elevations West Elevation East Elevation South Elevation Case No. ZA14-003 Attachment C Page 4 Traffic Impact Analysis Review 14 3030 LBJ FREEWAY SUITE 1600 DALLAS,TX 75234 972.2.48.3006 www.LeeEngineering.com LERI EncinEame February 7, 2014 Miss Alex Ayala City of Southlake 1400 Main Street, Suite 320 Southlake, Texas 76092 Re: Kimball Business Center - Traffic Impact Analysis Review Dear Miss Ayala: Per your request, we have reviewed the traffic engineering study for the proposed "Kimball Business Center" prepared by Deshazo Group and dated January 10, 2014. The proposed development is located to the north of Kimball Avenue opposite the Continental Boulevard intersection. Our review comments are numbered for ease of reference and the numbering does not imply any ranking, We have divided our comments into two categories — Informational Comments are those that require no action by the city or the applicant. Action Comments are those that require a response or action by the City or applicant. We offer the following corments on the submitted traffic impact analysis. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS (REQUIRE NO ACTION BY CITY OR APPLICANT) 1. The text of the TIA indicates that the land use is office/warehouse with an approximate size of 51,450 square feet. The proposed development is planned for buildout and operation by the end of 2014. 2. Existing traffic counts were collected on Wednesday, December 18. Carroll ISD was not operating on a normal schedule as grades 5-12 had early release this day. This should not significantly impact the traffic analysis and no revisions to the study are necessary. v� Y E A R S Of EXCELLENCE Case No. Attachment C ZA14-003 Page 5 3. Trip Generation was performed correctly for the stated uses of General Office at 32,550 SF and Warehouse at 18,900 SF. The site is predicted to generate 677 daily trips, 111 AM peak hour trips, and 136 PM peak hour trips. 4. A roadway link analysis was provided in the study that looked at bidirectional capacity and indicated no issues on the study roadways. Typically the link analysis is directional in nature and if done in this instance would reveal lower levels of service that are more consistent with the intersection analysis findings. No revisions to the analysis are necessary because intersection capacity analyses have been performed. ACTION COMMENTS (REQUIRE RESPONSE OR ACTION BY CITY OR APPLICANT) 5. Based on the land uses proposed and information presented in the TIA at this time the traffic volumes are approaching the thresholds for requiring a right -turn deceleration lane. While the trip distribution percentages used in the analysis appear to be reasonable, a small shift in traffic to/from SH 26 would likely result in the threshold for a right turn lane being exceeded. "rhe land uses permitted in the site should be restricted to those included in the TIA if a right turn deceleration lane is not provided. If more flexible land uses are desired, a right -turn lane should be provided, 6. The traffic analysis included in the study documents existing poor levels of service at both study intersections — SH 26 at Kimball and Kimball at Continental. o Regarding SH 26 at Kimball Ave, the study states that "No mitigation measure will help to alleviate the delay at this intersection nor are any recommended." ■ While obtaining right-of-way and coordinating with the railroad will be difficult, the addition of a dedicated right -turn lane on the Kimball Avenue approach to SH 26 will significantly improve traffic operations at the signalized intersection. We recommend that the Cities of Southlake and Grapevine begin examining the feasibility of widening the Kimball Avenue approach to SH 26. o Regarding Kimball at Continental, the study states that signalization will return the intersection to acceptable levels of service values. The study then states that while signalization would benefit the intersection, the proposed development traffic does not create the need for the signal. ■ The existing traffic volumes present at the intersection operate in a tolerable fashion because the two predominant movements at the intersection do not conflict. The eastbound left turn from Continental and northbound left turn from Kimball can both be processed at the same time with minimal conflict. The addition of a fourth leg to the intersection, in combination with the existing conditions, creates the need to signalize this location. The proposed fourth leg to the intersection significantly YEARS Of EXCEEEENCE Case No. Attachment C ZA14-003 Page 6 increases the number of conflict points at the intersection. A signal Should be constructed at this intersection in order to control the additional conflicting movements created by the developments addition of a fourth leg to this intersection 7. No cross access to properties to the west or north were shown in the site plan. Consideration should be given to providing cross access to adjacent sites. 8. Sight distance to the left for motorists exiting the site appears to be a potential concern based upon the information provided in the TIA. Page 4 of the TIA included an intersection sight distance assessment specifying 390 feet as the intersection sight distance based on AASHTO procedures. The 390 foot distance is based on the default 7.5 second time gap for a two-lane undivided roadway. Once the time gap has been adjusted to account for the additional through lane, left -turn lane, and median width, the intersection sight distance for 35 mph is 450 feet. This 390 foot distance was then depicted on Exhibit 8 illustrating areas where low growth landscaping must be used. o Exhibit 8, page 21, of the TIA depicted the line of sight necessary for the 390 foot intersection sight distance. Please provide an updated exhibit using the revised site plan along with an intersection site distance of 450 feet. o Areas where parking stops are necessary to keep parked vehicles out of sight lines and areas where low growth (less than 2' tall) landscaping is necessary must be clearly depicted on Exhibit 8. This is currently shown in blue on Exhibit 8. The landscaping plan that accompanies the site must conform to the recommendations of the traffic study in order to maintain intersection sight distance. o Sight distance to the right was not assessed in the study. Please assess available sight distance to the right. o The development will be responsible for the installation of warning signs meeting City specifications as referenced on page 4 of the study. 9. The site plan included in the TIA has a driveway that does not satisfy the City of Southlake Driveway Ordinance stacking/throat length requirement. The TIA includes traffic analysis indicating a 95th percentile queue length of 16 vehicles during the PM peak hour. The primary concern would be a vehicle exiting the site from the front parking area attempting to enter the queue and thus blocking incoming traffic, Given that a low volume of entering traffic is predicted during the PM peak, the proposed throat length should be ok. a Site characteristics may be considerably different if the land use mix is different than stated. If commercial recreation/training facilities locate in the development then PM entering traffic may be significantly higher. o The requested stacking distance variance appears to be reasonable based or the information presented in the TIA. 3 _ , f� f- YEARS I .WH[hci Case No. Attachment C ZA14-003 Page 7 10. The proposed driveway does not align well with the lanes on Continental. Approach and departure paths should line up across the intersection. Left turn paths should not overlap to allow flexibility in signal phasing when the intersection is signalized. The driveway should be moved or widened to the east to better align the eastbound path across the intersection. A two lane exit from the site would also be desirable to allow flexibility with signal phasing and left turn operation. If you have any questions, please contact me at (972) 248-3006. We appreciate the opportunity to provide these services and are available to address any additional comments or concerns. Sincerely, � FJohn T P. Denholm III, P.E., PTOE Lee Engineering TBPE Firm F-450 Case No. Attachment C ZA14-003 Page 8 Case No. Attachment C ZA14-003 Page 9 �DeShazo Group Traffic. Transportation Planning, Parking. Design. February 13, 2014 Miss Alex Ayala City of Southlake 1400 Main Street, Suite 320 Southlake, TX 76092 RE: Kimball Business Center — Traffic Impact Analysis Review (DeShazo Project 13200) Dear Miss Ayala: The following is our response to Mr. John Denholm III's comments regarding his review of our report referenced above. We understand that his first four comments do not require a response/action from us, so we are providing Mr. Denholm's comments followed by our responses to better facilitate understanding. 5. Based on the land uses proposed and information presented in the TIA at this time the traffic volumes are approaching the thresholds for requiring a right -turn deceleration lane. While the trip distribution percentages used in the analysis appear to be reasonable, a small shift in traffic to/from SH 26 would likely result in the threshold for a right turn lane being exceeded. The land uses permitted in the site should be restricted to those included in the TIA if a right turn deceleration lane is not provided. If more flexible land uses are desired, a right -turn lane should be provided. Response: Based upon the most current information from ClienUDevolopor, no major change to the current land use is anticipated, therefore, anticipated right -turn traffic should stay under the threshold. 6. The traffic analysis included in the study documents existing poor levels of service at both study intersections -Si 126 at Kimball and Kimball at Continental, o Regarding SH 26 at Kimball Ave, the study states that "No mitigation measure will help to alleviate the delay at this intersection nor are any recommended." • While obtaining right-of-way and coordinating with the railroad will be difficult, the addition of a dedicated right -turn lane on the Kimball Avenue approach to SH 26 will significantly improve traffic operations at the signalized intersection. We recommend that the Cities of Southlake and Grapevine begin examining the feasibility of widening the Kimball Avenue approach to SH 26. Response: We agree with and welcome your comments. Relevant to the trips gonorated by this project, we did not explore any future, long-term improvements. o Regarding Kimball at Continental, the study states that signalization will return the intersection to acceptable levels of service values. The study then states that while signalization would benefit the intersection, the proposed development traffic does not create the need for the signal. • The existing traffic volumes present at the intersection operate in a tolerable 400 South Houston Street, Suite 330 Dallas, Texas 75202 P. 214.748,6740 F. 214.748.2037 twuru.deshaxogroup.com Case No. Attachment C ZA14-003 Page 10 Miss Alex Ayolo February 13, 2014 Poge 2 fashion because the two predominant movements at the intersection do not conflict. The eastbound left turn from Continental and northbound left turn from Kimball can both be processed at the same time with minimal conflict. The addition of a fourth leg to the intersection, in combination with the existing conditions, creates the need to signalize this location. The proposed fourth leg to the intersection significantly increases the number of conflict points at the intersection. A signal should be constructed at this intersection in order to control the additional conflicting movements created by the development's addition of a fourth leg to this intersection. Response: The existing traffic conditions create the need for a traffic signal. The current delays on Continental Boulevard show that more than 30 vehicles are queued in the AM peak hour and 20 vehicles are queued in the PM peak hour. The fourth leg to the intersection is only a minor contribution to the existing condition. The added conflict points and delays on the minor street should not warrant the installation of traffic signal. 7 No cross access to properties to the west or north were shown in the site plan. Consideration should be given to providing cross access to adjacent sites. Response: Cross access was not considered for the properties to the west and north. To the west is an electronics manufacturer. the area to the north is vacant land (at the time of the study) and to the east is a Bus parking for the school (Dragon Stadium). 8 Sight distance to the left for motorists exiting the site appears to be a potential concern based upon the information provided in the TIA. Page 4 of the TIA included an intersection sight distance assessment specifying 390 feet as the intersection sight distance based on AASHTO procedures. The 390 foot distance is based on the default 7.5 second time gap for a two-lane undivided roadway. Once the time gap has been adjusted to account for the additional through lane, left -turn lane, and median width, the intersection sight distance for 35 mph is 450 feet.This 390 foot distance was then depicted on Exhibit 8 illustrating areas where low growth landscaping must be used. Response: The site does meet the important, minimum required stopping sight distance (SSD) criteria. However, the desirable intersection sight distance is not attainable. The exhibit has been revised to show the intersection sight distance. o Exhibit 8, page 21, of the TIA depicted the line of sight necessary for the 390 foot intersection sight distance. Please provide an updated exhibit using the revised site plan along with an intersection site distance of 450 feet. Response: We agree; please see revised exhibit. o Areas where parking stops are necessary to keep parked vehicles out of sight lines and areas where low growth (less than 2' tall) landscaping is necessary must be clearly depicted on Exhibit 8. This is currently shown in blue on Exhibit 8. The landscaping plan that accompanies the site must conform to the recommendations of the traffic study in order to maintain intersection sight distance. Response. See revised site plan. o Sight distance to the right was not assessed in the study. Please assess available sight distance to the right. Response: Agree and see revised. Case No. Attachment C ZA14-003 Page 11 Miss Alex Ayala February 13, 2014 Page 3 o The development will be responsible for the installation of warning signs meeting. City specifications as referenced on page 4 of the study. Response: The Client /Development will be responsible for installation of warning sign. 9. The site plan included in the TIA has a driveway that does not satisfy the City of Southlake Driveway Ordinance stacking/throat length requirement. The TIA includes traffic analysis indicating a 95th percentile queue length of 16 vehicles during the PM peak hour. The primary concern would be a vehicle exiting the site from the front parking area attempting to enter the queue and thus blocking incoming traffic. Given that a low volume of entering traffic is predicted during the PM peak, the proposed throat length should beok. o Site characteristics may be considerably different if the land use mix is different thanstated. lfcommercialrecreation/training facilities locate in the development then PKI entering traffic may be significantly higher Response: Based upon the current information from ClienUDeveloper, no change in the land use identified. o The requested stacking distance variance appears to be reasonable based on the information presented in the TIA. Response: We agree. 10. The proposed driveway does not align well with the lanes on Continental. Approach and departure paths should line up across the intersection. Left turn paths should not overlap to allow flexibility in signal phasing when the intersection is signalized. The driveway should be moved or widened to the east to better align the eastbound path across the intersection. A two lane exit from the site would also be desirable to allow flexibility �.vith signal phasing and left turn operation. Response: Since the development as proposed generates a little over 100 peak -hour trips during the AM and PM peak hours, two outbound lanes (two exit lanes) are not needed. See revised site plan shown to align the inbound lane with the existing left -turn lane from Continental Boulevard. The existing EB left -turn lane could be restriped to function as a shared left/lhru lane. Agree that if the City of Southlake decides to build a traffic signal at this intersection, then a two-lane exit from the site is desirable and will provide more efficient phasing options. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Sincerely, DeSHAZO GROUP, INC. Chandra Muruganandham, P.E., PTOE Project Manager CM:Isk Case No. Attachment C ZA14-003 Page 12 M�� ri �E C.7 1 �1 1 1 II Case No. Attachment C ZA14-003 Page 13 USOUTHLAKE SPIN MEETING REPORT CASE NO. ZA14-003 PROJECT NAME: Kimball Business Center SPIN DISTRICT: SPIN # 8 MEETING DATE: February 11, 2014 MEETING LOCATION: 1400 Main Street, Southlake, TX City Council Chambers TOTAL ATTENDANCE: Seven (7) SPIN REPRESENTATIVE(S) PRESENT: Matt Shurley (SPIN 9 8) APPLICANT(S) PRESENTING: Dan Anderson, Trium Development Partners-, Steve Shrumm, Glacier Commercial Property, et al one (1) STAFF PRESENT: Lorrie Fletcher, Planner STAFF CONTACT: Patty Moos, Planner I: (817)748-8269 or pmoos _,ci.southlake.tx.us EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Property Situation • The property is located at 925 South Kimball Avenue. Development Details Proposed Site Plan for the development of two office/warehouse buildings totaling approximately 50,389 square feet of office!warehouse floor area. o Office/warehouse o Light industrial zoning o Painted tilt wall — concrete with stone and metal accents. Hill Country style architecture. o Single story buildings The plans presented at SPIN: sai� as t ems.- .�- i f • .ram-.�+s �� . B.- Case No. Attachment C ZA14-003 Page 14 4. o hYlllnla QUESTIONS / CONCERNS There were no questions and/or comments made_ Nleeting adjourned — 6:50 PM SPIN Meeting Reports are general observations of SPIN Meetings by City staff and SPIN Representatives. The report is neither verbatim nor meeting minutes: rather it serves to inform elected and appointed officials, City staff, and the public of the issues and questions raised by resider the general responses made. Responses as summarized in this report should not be taken as guarantees by the applicant. Interested part strongly encouraged to follow the case through the Planning and Zoning Commission and final action by City Council. Case No. Attachment C ZA14-003 Page 15 REVIEW SUMMARY SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY Case No.: ZA14-003 Review No.: Three Project Name: KIMBALL BUSINESS CENTER let»1[67AkilkaOR1=67"fen i1 Javier D. Jaramillo, P.E. 8350 N. Central Exr)ressway. Ste. 1000 Date of Review: 2/14/14 DEVELOPER: Chandraco, LP Sanjay Chandra 1841 Broken Bow Drive Dallas, TX Westlake, TX 76262 Phone: (972) 235-3031 Phone: (972) 567-9598 Email: iiaramillo(a-)pkce.com CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 01/13/14 AND WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. THESE STIPULATIONS ARE HEREBY MADE CONDITIONS OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED FURTHER CLARIFICATION, PLEASE CONTACT APPROPRIATE STAFF MEMBER. Planning Review Patty Moos Planner I Phone: (817) 748-8269 Email: pmoos(cD-ci.southlake.tx.us The following are recommendations and observations by staff where your application may benefit and does not represent a requirement. A material sample board may more clearly represent the materials being used on the building being proposed. This may be useful during the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting and City Council meetings. Tree Conservation/Landscape Review Keith Martin Landscape Administrator Phone: (817) 748-8229 E-mail: kmartinC@-ci.southlake.tx.us TREE CONSERVATION COMMENTS: Please ensure that the existing trees that are proposed to be preserved can actually be properly preserved. Some of the existing trees that are proposed to be preserved are adjacent to the proposed buildings, at the edge of the parking, have grade changes proposed around them, and utilities installed proposed close to them. A protected tree shall be considered to be altered if one or more of the following occurs: more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the critical root zone is adversely affected, more than twenty-five percent (25%) of its canopy is removed, or the tree is disfigured to the extent a reasonable person would conclude the tree will not survive. Please be aware that all existing trees shown to be preserved on the City Council approved Tree Case No. Attachment D ZA14-003 Page 1 Conservation Plan must be preserved and protected during all phases and construction of the development. Alteration or removal of any of the existing trees shown to be preserved on the approved Tree Conservation Plan is a violation of the Tree Preservation Ordinance and the zoning as approved by the Southlake City Council. Please ensure that the layout of all structures, easements, utilities, structures grading, and any other structure proposed to be constructed do not conflict with existing trees intended to be preserved. 11k1111Ell N Eel : Will k111:1671»_1kIIII Ell W/_1N11aele]►yil►yilEll k111&1 The eight (8) parking landscape islands on each side of the north building are less than twelve feet (12') wide. Planter islands shall have a minimum width of 12' back -of -curb to back -of -curb if curbed or 13' edge -to -edge if no curb is intended, and shall be equal to the length of the parking stall. 2. A canopy tree is proposed in a parking lot island with a fire hydrant proposed in it on the east side of the property. The tree will probably not be able to planted within this island because it is an offense to plant a tree within ten feet (10') of a fire hydrant. Public Works/Engineering Review Alejandra Ayala, P.E. Civil Engineer Phone: (817) 748-8274 E-mail: aayala(cD-ci.southlake.tx.us GENERAL COMMENTS: * This review is preliminary. Additional requirements may be necessary with the review of construction plans. * Street intersections must comply with TDLR/ADA accessibility standards. * Sight distances will be required to conform to AASHTO guidelines on adjacent collectors and arterials. * Use the City of Southlake GPS monuments whenever possible. Benchmark information can be found in the City of Southlake website:http://www.citvofsouthlake.com/index.aspx?NID=266 TRAFFIC IMPAT ANALYSIS (TIA): The Traffic Impact Analysis conducted by DeShazo Group (DeShazo #13200), dated January 10, 2014 was sent to Lee Engineering for review. Refer to the comments from Lee Engineering which have been included for further information. The site is zoned as a Light Industrial District 1-1" with anticipated General Office and Warehouse uses. The land uses permitted in the site should be restricted to those included in the TIA if a right turn deceleration lane is not provided. See Lee Engineering Comment 5. The TIA states that while signalization would benefit the intersection, the proposed development traffic does not create the need for the signal. See Lee Engineering Comment 6. The sight distance to the left for motorists exiting the site appears to be a potential concern. The TIA states that parking stalls will include curb stops to keep vehicles away from the sight triangle. Also, planting should be restricted to low growth (less than 2' tall) along the frontage but the landscape plan submitted indicates trees proposed to be planted within the sight triangle. See Lee Engineering Comment 8. Case No. Attachment D ZA14-003 Page 2 * The proposed driveway does not align well with the lanes on Continental. A two lane exit from the site would also be desirable to allow flexibility with signal phasing and left turn operation. See Lee Comment 10. mreF_]Ell ►YilEll k111&1 Water and sewer lines cannot cross property lines without being in a public easement or in the ROW. All waterlines in easements or ROW must be constructed to City standards. DRAINAGE COMMENTS: This site drains to the south into an existing drainage swale. Documentation supporting and certifying that detention is not necessary shall be required prior to releasing civil plans for construction. * If detention is necessary; the difference between pre and post development runoff shall be captured in a detention pond. The proposed detention ponds shall control the discharge of the 2, 10 and 100 year storm events. Any changes to the site plan to include a detention pond may require approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. * Provide calculations with the civil construction plans verifying that the street and existing curb inlets contain the necessary capacity to convey fully developed conditions. * Provide capacity for the proposed storm drain line located along the eastern property for the northern property. ■ All storm sewers collecting runoff from the public street shall be RCP. ■ The discharge of post development runoff must have no adverse impact on downstream properties and meet the provisions of Ordinance # 605. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS: * Submit 4 copies civil construction plans (22" X 34" full size sheets) and a completed Construction Plan Checklist directly to the Public Works Administration Department for review. The plans shall conform to the most recent construction plan checklist, standard details and general notes which are located on the City's website: * http://www.citvofsouthlake.com/PublicWorks/engineeringdesign.asp * A ROW permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Operations Department (817) 748-8082 to connect to the City's sewer, water or storm sewer system. * A Developer Agreement may be required for this development and may need to be approved by the City Council prior to any construction of public infrastructure. Construction plans for these improvements must be acceptable to Public Works prior to placing the Developer's Agreement on the City Council agenda for consideration. * Payment, Performance and a separate 2-year Maintenance Bond for public infrastructure shall be required for this development. The 2-year Maintenance Bond shall be bound only unto the City of Southlake. The Maintenance Bond cannot be tied to the Performance and Payment Bond in any way as required per the Commercial Developer Agreement. * Any hazardous waste being discharged must be pretreated Ordinance No. 836. * =Denotes informational comment. Fire Department Review Kelly Clements Assistant Fire Marshal Phone: (817) 748-8671 E-mail: kclements(d)ci.southlake.tx.us Case No. Attachment D ZA14-003 Page 3 GENERAL COMMENTS: The required backflow protection (double check valve) for the sprinkler system can be located on the riser if the riser is within 100 feet of the water main. If the riser is further than 100 feet from the main, the double check valve shall be in a pit. Riser rooms shall be a minimum of 5'X5' if the double check is not located on the riser, or a minimum of 6'X6' if it is on the riser. Fire department sprinkler connections, FDC, are to be a five inch Storz connection with a 30 degree down elbow and a Knox locking cap. A fire alarm system will be required for all buildings equipped with an automatic sprinkler system. The fire alarm must comply with the 2009 International Fire Code, The City of Southlake amendments, and NFPA 72. (Submit plans to Reed Fire Protection, 14135 Midway Road, Suite G260, Addison, Texas 75001) An exterior audible/visual fire alarm device must be installed above the Fire Department Connection on each sprinkled building to indicate when a fire alarm condition is present in the building. A complete set of plans for the underground fire protection line, fire sprinkler system, and fire alarm system shall be submitted to Reed Fire Protection for review and approval at 14135 Midway Road in Addison, Texas 75001. Business phone is 214-638-7599. HVAC units over 2000 cubic feet per minute shall have a duct smoke detector mounted on the return side of the unit, that when activated, shall send an alarm condition to the building fire alarm panel and shut the unit down. HVAC units over 15000 cubic feet per minute shall also have a duct detector mounted on the supply side of the unit that functions as the detector does on the return side. If the units are located above ceiling tile, remote reset switches must be installed below the duct detector location. a1:74We1kl;Kde]►Y,ILY,lEll kIII &I Fire apparatus access needs to be an all-weather surface, asphalt or concrete, 24 feet wide and able to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus. (minimum of 80,000 pounds GVW) INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS: All commercial buildings are required to have Knox Box rapid entry systems installed. Boxes can be ordered at www.knoxbox.com or contact the Fire Marshal's Office. General Informational Comments No review of proposed signs is intended with this site plan. A separate building permit is required prior to construction of any signs. All mechanical equipment must be screened of view from right-of-ways and residential properties in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended. All lighting must comply with the Lighting Ordinance No. 693, as amended. All development must comply with the Drainage Ordinance No. 605 and the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance No. 946, as amended. Case No. Attachment D ZA14-003 Page 4 A portion of this property lies within the 65 LDN D/FW Regional Airport Overlay Zone and will require construction standards that meet requirements of the Airport Compatible Land Use Zoning Ordinance No. 479. Development must comply with all requirements in Zoning Ordinance No. 480, Section 43, Overlay Zones. The applicant should be aware that prior to issuance of a building permit an Amended Plat must be processed and filed in the County Plat Records, a fully corrected site plan, landscape plan, irrigation plan, and building plans, must be submitted for approval and all required fees must be paid. This may include but not be limited to the following fees: Park Fee, Perimeter Street Fee, Water & Sewer Impact and Tap Fees, and related Permit Fees. Denotes Informational Comment Case No. Attachment D ZA14-003 Page 5 SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS MAP & RESPONSES Kimball Business Center 1085 So 1015 925 10� ry^h p p �y 950 2150 E CONS�r; 960 MW 2200 Mustang Ct SPO # Owner Zoning Address Acreage Response 1. St John Bapt Ch Grand Prairie CS 800 S KIMBALL AVE 12.89 NR 2. Denmiss Llc 11 910 S KIMBALL AVE 0.93 NR 3• Denmiss Llc 11 920 S KIMBALL AVE 1.49 NR 4• Denmiss Llc 11 930 S KIMBALL AVE 1.48 NR 5. Loh Texas Investment Llc 11 940 S KIMBALL AVE 1.52 NR 6• Vario Properties Lp 11 2250 E CONTINENTAL BLVD 2.70 NR 7. Inprov Real Estate Lp 11 2150 E CONTINENTAL BLVD 2.06 NR 8• Vario Properties Lp 11 901 S KIMBALL AVE 3.45 NR 9• Chandraco Broadgate Gp 11 925 S KIMBALL AVE 3.82 NR 10. Pfa Properties Llc 11 2241 E CONTINENTAL BLVD 0.87 NR 11. S L J Continental Plaza Ltd 11 950 S KIMBALL AVE 1.32 NR 12. Journey 5 Ventures Llc 11 2245 E CONTINENTAL BLVD 0.79 NR 13. Elite Suites Ltd 11 2201 E CONTINENTAL BLVD 1.63 NR 14. Keith, Wendell P & Carol N 11 2211 E CONTINENTAL BLVD 1.36 NR 15. K & D Development 11 2221 E CONTINENTAL BLVD 0.55 NR 16. Journey 5 Ventures Llc 11 2251 E CONTINENTAL BLVD 0.57 NR 17. A & B Properties Inc Etal 11 2600 SH 26 24.75 NR 18. Thomas Family Partnership Up SP2 2301 CROOKED LN 14.14 NR 19. Carroll ISD SP1 1085 S KIMBALL AVE 34.97 NR 20. S LJ Continental Plaza Ltd 11 960 S KIMBALL AVE 4.15 NR 21. Bhs Ventures Llc SF1-A 695 S KIMBALL AVE 1.41 NR 22. Pearson, Carey Etux Kelly SF1-A 2300 CROOKED LN 1.41 NR 23. Wood, Charles W Etux Margaret SF1-A 2350 CROOKED LN 1.41 NR 24. Westgate Office Park Owners 11 2271 E CONTINENTAL BLVD 1.41 NR 25. Bhs Ventures Llc 11 2271 E CONTINENTAL BLVD 1.41 NR 26. Ddrt Llc 11 2271 E CONTINENTAL BLVD 1.41 NR 27. McKamic, Sammy L & Miranda 11 2273 E CONTINENTAL BLVD 1.41 NR Case No. Attachment E ZA14-003 Page 1 28. Cornerstone Wealth Mgt Llc 11 2273 E CONTINENTAL BLVD 1.41 NR 29. Cogent Point Llc 11 2275 E CONTINENTAL BLVD 1.41 NR 30. Cogent Point Llc 11 2275 E CONTINENTAL BLVD 1.41 NR 31. Cogent Point Llc 11 2275 E CONTINENTAL BLVD 1.41 NR F: In Favor O: Opposed To U: Undecided NR: No Response Notices Sent: Thirty (31) Responses Received: None Case No. Attachment E ZA14-003 Page 2